This is the second commission to . I may have gone a bit overboard on the sparkles here... but I figured, why not. I want it to look like Noah attempted to step out of the world of DA and is being dragged back in. Overall, I'm quite satisfied.

Does make me wonder though... why do so many trans people have this interest in being forced into cross-dressing? Often to the most extreme point: hypersexual or supercute. I have my own opinions, but I'd be curious to see what others have to say.

Could be related to the reason people take such lengths to avoid the label of "slut". They've been conditioned their whole life to see sex as wrong, so fantasies of being forced into sex placates the conscience, as it no longer feels guilty about participating in sex.Could also be related to the Objectification subcategory of BDSM, where people are heavily restrained and treated as inanimate furniture pieces, no longer human, a holiday from all human responsibilities.

Just use a sparkle brush in photoshop, you can find free downloads here on DA... use a solid white and go crazy. Then under blending mode (what people switch from "Normal" to "Multiply" to turn transparent) you can either drop the opacity, or change it to "Soft Light" "Overlay" or "Hard Light", to have the fabric shine through underneath. It's a lot of experimentation, really.

Awww...Noah Rabbit.So some Doctors will tell you that crossdressing can cause a level of guilt. The "forced" part removes that guilt.The problem is that the "forced" part is also very hard to play for the "forcer"...

I do, in fact, agree with you on your last point, with a couple of observations, if I may:

1.) One of the most basic, and universal, features of nature is variation within populations. What this translates to is that the dichotomous descriptions you've cited about men and women are statistical averages of populations--sort of centers of gravity, if you will. There are 'feminine' men and 'masculine' women, because of overlap between groups, these overlaps arising from factors that I'm sure are still far from completely understood. I like to say: 'nature doesn't punch us out with a cookie cutter'.

2.) Man is a learning animal--indeed the premier learning animal on the planet. What this translates into is that human nature is filtered through the vast prisms of culture and history, not to mention individual circumstance. While the modern human ascendant is surely the consequence of our intrinsic malleability, that malleability makes us vulnerable to pathological variants of learning, some of which I've mentioned above. This is a price, I guess, we pay for our talent for learning and adaptation, much in the way that an engineer will tell you that the more maneuverable you make an aircraft, the more unstable it will be.

Excellent points! As much as I believe we have specific qualities attached to our biological gender, I also believe that the bio makeup of each person has more diversity than most modern society will give credit due to the nature of evolution.

In 'The Female Eunuch', Germaine Greer introduces her thesis with a paragraphs-long screed about how she's tired of a whole panoply of female customs, including makeup ("painting my face"), long hair ("weighting my head with a dead mane"), pantyhose ("encasing my legs in sausage-casings"), and ends this tirade with "I'm tired of being a transvestite."

The last 'focus' of Rickets (a bone-deforming disease caused by lack of sunlight, impairing the creation of vitamin D in the skin) in the world is found among Islamic women, some of whom live in deserts where more energy falls in the form of sunlight in a year than man has used since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

Indeed, I would assert that if traditional practices of 'femininity' (Whalebone corsets, lead-based makeup, bound feet, lip rings, neck rings, the Burqa, high heels, CFC-laden hairsprays, etc., etc.,) were surveyed across all cultures and all times, it would be found that such were always physically pernicious in some dimension upon those on whom they were imposed.

There is a power relationship--or several--here, played out across the millennia, and deeply rooted in human nature. And neither can it merely be blamed solely on men (high heels were invented by Catherine Di Medici, a sixteenth century Venetian noblewoman, and bound feet originated with a Chinese dancer, who adorned her feet with ribbons to increase her allure), though men, being physically dominant, surely bear by far the greatest weight of responsibility for this.

Indeed, neither are men immune from such power relationships. I recall having read once (though I don't remember the source) that when U.S. GI's were tortured by their captors during WWII, some of them reported that if the torture went on long enough, it resulted in the victim developing an infatuation with their torturer, and "one of the hardest things to do was to hide this form of punch-drunkenness." And how interesting to note that when men are isolated, they will so often use some of their own number as subject matter to create the feminine amongst themselves, as in modern prisons, and written about by novelist James Clavell in his semi-memoir,'King Rat', about the notorious Changi Japanese concentration camp.

So, I think what is seen in 'forced feminization' is a masochistic thrill, intimate and inextricable in all human nature, fused with the transfer of responsibility; a form of life lived out of the corner of one's eye, in consequence being vulnerable--as we all are--in a world dominated by fear and defined by power.

Or, in brutal terms, there's a good bit of the 'girlie' in all of us, male and female, because of the simple fact that we can feel pain, and, in the words of no less than Adolf Hitler, "All of life is power relationships and their consequences."

And lastly, were I female, and saw such display, I think I would do well, and prudently, to ask myself bemusedly, 'Is that what they really think of me?'

I do have to say though, and I'm not sure if you're pro or con this, that being subjugated is something some of us WANT and seek out. And I don't think it's a neuroses. I think a lot about Dr. John Gray and his work on Gender differences. I think about how men and women relieve stress and create a sense of wellness with different hormonal processes.

Men create testosterone by solving problems and resting.Women create oxytocin by nurturing and being nurtured.

In short, women produce stress-relieving hormones when they can take care of and be taken care of. Men do the same when they provide and are appreciated for providing. This does, in its way, create a power relationship in which women are defined by who they are (passive) and men are defined by what they do (active).

My point is, that being passive/ acted upon is a naturally occuring role, and that desiring to be appreciated in that role is an acceptable and healthy ambition.

IMO I see it as I have 25 years of my life to make up for in NOT being a Girl so I have a lot of pink and fun poofy big super girly cute stuff that I let Play dolly with me to make up for the girl childhood I never got to have.

One of the things I'm suprised hasn't been mentioned is how age seems to play a factor. Younger TG/CDs (myself included) seem to dress in extremes almost as if daring people not to look at, and accept, them. Kind of like a proclomation (overcompensation?) of who they want to be seen as.

In getting older, perhaps self-acceptance and perspective shows that there is also a joy in not being noticed or found out, adds a feeling of tranquility in finally feeling "right".

Maybe that gets away from your original question of ForcedFem. For that I can only offer my reason. In having another pick, I know that there is someone excited about how I look. They see me for who I want to be, and they want me to be that way too.

Plus, I love getting dressed up, but, it can take FOREVER to pick just the right look. ^.^

I think you're right.Something similar: a lot of artists tend to draw sexy stuff LIKE WOAH when they're younger. Some continue this forever but others sort of mellow out and look for other, less sexually gratifying venues for their artwork.

My mistake. You mentioned those types of terms during one of your strips for Material Girl and I posted my first message based on a completely unrelated deviation. I am not referring to the transgender community.

I wrote a journal on the relationship between transgender and fetishism. [link]

The long and the short of it is, there is a whole rainbow of reasons why someone wears clothes of the opposite gender, and anyone who makes any broad generalizations is certainly oversimplifying.

I find the word autogynephiliac somewhat unpleasant myself, as it reminds me of The Man Who Would Be Queen, one of the most controversial and divisive (not to mention wrong) books on transgenderism ever published. Suffice to say, it divides all TG people into two piles, neither of which I fit into.

I found your experience with fetish and how it let up after fulfilling your unmet needs, very insightful. Thanks!

There's a very real danger in equating fetish to trans. Fetish incites ideas of unfettered indulgence and psychological imbalance. Fair or not, that's how it's seen. But luckily, most people can keep it to the bedroom: meaning no fear of societal repercussions. But for most, being trans means taking it out of the bedroom: it's a core part of our identity. This has it's own challenges. Dealing with the prejudices against fetish as well is that much worse.

I'm totally with you on the thought that being trans and having a sex drive are not mutually exclusive. No way. That's just crazy talk. Also, I just learned the term autogynephiliac today, but it IS unnerving. Am I wrong, or is it equating any transexuals that have a sex drive to fetishists?

I'm not totally with you if you think all non-sis people need an operation to be 'true to themselves.' I'm perfectly happy being genderqueer.

Well I didn't say that, and I'm against generalizations in general, so probably not.

As for autogynephiliac, it is a term for someone who has a sexual desire for women, but who transfers that desire onto themselves, thus wanting to make themselves into women. The book splits the m2f transgender world into two groups, autogynephiliacs and "homosexual transsexuals", physically more feminine specimins who like guys.

A lot of TG groups who buy into this theory equate themselves with the second group, because everyone wants to be "born like that" and not have it be essentially an abnormal sexuality of a heterosexual male, to the extent of actively dismissing the legitimacy of the autogynephiliac camp's claim to true femininity (whatever that is.) . Hence the divisiveness.

Note that this theory dismisses the whole "trapped in the wrong body" thing altogether.

Personally I think the whole theory is on the nose, since it makes massive generalizations about a hugely complicated issue from a small sample size. It is also hugely demeaning to those, like me, who cherish the idea that they are essentially a woman, by equating transgenderism with two known forms of male sexuality instead of a new form of gender.

Plus it just doesn't apply like that to everyone. I am a transsexual who prefers men, even though I am not exactly a waif at 6'4... and my sexuality is completely female, as I have always lacked the desire to "penetrate" and I just want to feel protected... so which camp do I supposedly fit into? I call BS.

As someone who falls into the 'abnormal sexuality' camp, being (mostly) heterosexual but also trans, I appreciate you not hating on us!

I can safely say this theory is full of it. I knew I was trans when I was six, but I had no sexual interest in women until the fourth grade. How would this theory explain that?

And it's absolutely demeaning to ladies like you who know your gender as female and not some abnormality of the male side of things.

I find these kinds of theories so caustic because, at the root of it all, it's trying to make trans into some sort of curable 'condition' instead of an aspect of who we are. Even though I'm trans and that makes life difficult, I would NEVER want to be cured of it any more then I would want to be cured of my love of art or my religious affiliations. It's arrogant, and incredibly offensive.